How about the following as a way to fill the "gaping hole" [see first
message in thread]:
Let U be a URI, Z a representation, and R be a thing (perhaps an
"information resource").
If the following holds:
{U's owner (or lessee) authorizes a 200 response carrying Z as a
response to a GET request for U}
*because*
{R has representation Z}
(and contrariwise, Z is not authorized because it is not a representation}
then take U to be a name for R.
One would like to say "if and only if" here, because it's more
tractable (more objective, easier to verify, avoids the
philosophically troublesome invocation of causation). But if you use
"if and only if", you can't distinguish the cases of U naming
resources that differ only in "phlogiston".
Now we only need to figure out when Z is or is not a representation of
R and we're done.
-----
DISCLAIMER. I think the above is sort of ridiculous. This is certainly
not the way *I* would design a semantic web. I'll explain what I'm
trying to do in a separate thread.
Jonathan